I received some hateful personal comments in response to my post title "Freedom of speech", hence I feel the need to clarify my position.
I'm not against any individual engaging in any activities that don't harm other individuals.
Basically, if one smokes pot, and smoking pot is their only deed, the government shouldn't be after you, neither would I feel compelled to take any actions against it.
Similarly, if one chooses to engage in a romantic relationship with a partner of the same sex, that is entirely their business and none of my or the government's business. Two (or more) adults can form any kind of unions they want - I couldn't care less.
Gay parenting, on the other hand, introduces another party to the equation - the child. The child is subjected to living in a gay family without his/her approval and consent. One can't hide behind the "what we do is our business" line when children are involved - it's not your business only anymore, it's the child's business too.
If you are inclined to believe that for millions of years, mother nature erred in choosing to pro-create by forming heterosexual couples, sure - that's an opinion which you are entitled to have. What you are not entitled to is the ability to force that upon children who have no voice in the matter. Just like we as a society force certain things upon parents: car seats, school education, etc. - we need to ensure that every child is allowed to have a mother and a father, because every child deserves them. We should promote "traditional" family values not because some senators or Bible says so, but because it's only natural.
This includes out-of-wedlock and teen-age births, by the way, as well as divorces in child-bearing families. We should make it as difficult as possible legally and culturally for those things to happen. Divorce laws, public assistance regulations, etc. all need to be re-visited with this in mind. We as a society need to educate young people about the importance of traditional families (one could refer to that as "propaganda").
To summarize, my belief in children's right to a mother and a father is consistent and is not aimed against any particular minority group. As a father and as a child in a family where my father wasn't always there for us two boys, I care deeply about this issue.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Big government really an anti-dote to evil of big business?
Big businesses use big government to rig the game.
Without big government, big business will have to compete fairly against small business and small business will probably win because it's more efficient than big business. (or it may lose if big business is better)
Yes, big business has more financial resources to win in the competition. But, if their lawyers and lobbyists don't have a big corrupt government to buy officials/judges/etc., then the lawyers and the lobbyists are useless. If the government is small and consists of honest hardworking officials, then there's no one to bribe with all that cash that big business has.
Sure lots of cash in the bank helps to market the product more, create a better brand strategy, do more R&D, etc. (which is good for everyone, as that expenditure goes to other people's pockets). But then, big business suffers from the same kind of inefficiency and corruption like big governments. So the advantages of being big is offset by the shortcomings of being big.
Without big government, big business will have to compete fairly against small business and small business will probably win because it's more efficient than big business. (or it may lose if big business is better)
Yes, big business has more financial resources to win in the competition. But, if their lawyers and lobbyists don't have a big corrupt government to buy officials/judges/etc., then the lawyers and the lobbyists are useless. If the government is small and consists of honest hardworking officials, then there's no one to bribe with all that cash that big business has.
Sure lots of cash in the bank helps to market the product more, create a better brand strategy, do more R&D, etc. (which is good for everyone, as that expenditure goes to other people's pockets). But then, big business suffers from the same kind of inefficiency and corruption like big governments. So the advantages of being big is offset by the shortcomings of being big.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Who said people don't like me?!!....
Emails suggest Axelrod leaned on Gallup after unfavorable poll
Employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president ......
.....
when Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, the Obama administration’s Justice Department revived a 2009 whistle-blower lawsuit against the firm by joining the suit ......
.......
This is yet more evidence that Obama and his crew think and talk like Putin, Chavez and company. A poll firm shows them trailing - attack the poll firm. Rating becomes an objective of its own. Who cares if the economy is fine, or if the debt is huge? As long as Gallup reports "good" results, Obama is happy.
I think they should think as appropriate for the 21st century. Instead of going after Gallup, send FBI agents to the homes of those who voted for Romney and threaten them with environmental charges/litigation if they don't change their minds. Their identities are easily obtainable using the PATRIOT Act, after all (thanks, Bush!)
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Drug war
The government's job is to protect people from each other. It's not in the business of protecting a person from him- or herself.
Using drugs, or growing and/or possessing them with the intent of using them, hurt the user only and should not be punished, period.
However, selling/giving certain drugs (heroin, meth, LSD) to someone else hurts that person and hence should be a punishable crime. Furthermore, if one is found in possession but refuses to give away the dealer they bought it from (if they bought from a dealer), then they're obstructing justice and should be charged with that. Excuses like "I found it on the street" should not work.
Obviously, appropriate border and coast protection will go a long way towards reducing the flow of illicit drugs from foreign countries.
Using drugs, or growing and/or possessing them with the intent of using them, hurt the user only and should not be punished, period.
However, selling/giving certain drugs (heroin, meth, LSD) to someone else hurts that person and hence should be a punishable crime. Furthermore, if one is found in possession but refuses to give away the dealer they bought it from (if they bought from a dealer), then they're obstructing justice and should be charged with that. Excuses like "I found it on the street" should not work.
Obviously, appropriate border and coast protection will go a long way towards reducing the flow of illicit drugs from foreign countries.
Monday, September 3, 2012
"Freedom" of speech
Adult children of gay couples were two to four times as likely to be on public assistance, more than twice as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to have contemplated suicide.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/03/u-texas-backs-professor-in-battle-with-gay-blogger/#ixzz25Q6D4mjQ
.....
The inquiry was conducted by a four-member advisory panel composed of senior university faculty members, who seized Regnerus’ computers and 42,000 emails.
The study indicates that children raised by gay parents experienced worse childhoods on average than children of married couples of the opposite sex, who were also their biological parents.
A professor publishing a research not in line with the mainstream bullshit is accused of all possible and impossible sins, his university computers and communication seized, etc. Why stop there - he should be jailed! executed!
Funny choice of verb by LGBTweekly, too - "exonerated" - as if he was previously found guilty of a crime. How dare he say something they don't like! Surely he's a criminal.
The willingness of so many people to ignore the basic tenets of nature - that 99% of species, particularly mammals, need a couple of the opposite sex for pro-creation - shows how hypocritical have we as a society become. The same people will scream "science" when it suits their views (or they think it does, or they think they can convince others it does), yet science would be the first thing to forget when it doesn't.
Come on, people! If you disagree, go conduct your own study – which should prove him wrong, right? Why all this character assassination, accusations of dishonesty, etc.? Could it be your understanding of him being correct and you being wrong? and consequently, your inability to argue the actual point?
Should LGBT movement’s reaction to Regnerus’ study then be construed as acknowledgement of his correctness?
Bus service
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-cobble-convention-crowd-together-bit-bit-080509590--election.html
Busing people in - typical tactics of authoritarian regimes: Putin, Chavez, Morales, etc. All are in desperate need of "public support and people's will" after illegitimate election "victories".
The democrats have chosen the right examples to follow, that's for sure. The party of corrupt big government will do what other leaders of corrupt big governments do.
College students from across North Carolina will arrive in Charlotte by the busload. Same with members of predominantly black churches in neighboring South Carolina.
.....
Elena Botella, a student at Duke University and president of the College Democrats of North Carolina, said her school was busing 100 students to the speech.
Lonnie Randolph, the president of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, said several large black churches in his state are planning to send busloads of members on Thursday to watch the president's speech.
Busing people in - typical tactics of authoritarian regimes: Putin, Chavez, Morales, etc. All are in desperate need of "public support and people's will" after illegitimate election "victories".
The democrats have chosen the right examples to follow, that's for sure. The party of corrupt big government will do what other leaders of corrupt big governments do.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Global... something
1970s - "The earth is cooling, we will all die! [We will] tax and spend to solve the problem!"
2000s - "The earth is warming, we will all die! [We will] tax and spend to solve the problem!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling - "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s .... In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century"
2040s - "The earth is cooling, we will all die! [We will] tax and spend to solve the problem!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - "Global warming was a conjecture during the 2000s ... In contrast to the global warming conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably warmed, but undergone global cooling throughout the last 2 centuries."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling - "Global cooling is the reduction in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 18th century"
2000s - "The earth is warming, we will all die! [We will] tax and spend to solve the problem!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling - "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s .... In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century"
2040s - "The earth is cooling, we will all die! [We will] tax and spend to solve the problem!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - "Global warming was a conjecture during the 2000s ... In contrast to the global warming conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably warmed, but undergone global cooling throughout the last 2 centuries."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling - "Global cooling is the reduction in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 18th century"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)